General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe implications of the WAPO Poll on Torture
(NOTE: I originally posted this as a comment to an article at Salon.com.)have been mulling over the Washington Post poll for several days now, asking myself what it says about us, as a society, that nearly two-thirds of us seem to think there are circumstances under which torture is justified. They cling to this belief no matter how often you point out to them: (1) that the CIA did things that we executed Japanese soldiers for at the end of WWII; (2) that we are signatories to, and were largely the authors of, the Geneva Conventions which specifically state that there are NO extenuating circumstances under which torture may be justified; (3) that our own laws, as well as international law, prohibit torture; (4) that nearly 1 in 5 of the detainees whose torture is outlined in the Senate report were innocent people whom the CIA had improperly detained; (5) that our use of torture increases the likelihood that our own soldiers will face a similar fate in future wars; and that, besides all of the foregoing, (5) torture doesn't (and didn't in this case) yield reliable information (it produces information, but not necessarily, or even likely, good information),
There seems to be a rather widespread notion that the events of 9-11 represented an attack so uniquely horrific in the history of civilization as compared to anything that had ever befallen any other country in history, that this country, in its response, was alleviated of any and all moral constraint -- including the constraint of confining whatever response we might make to those who were actually responsible. 9-11 was certainly horrific -- living in New York at the time (and still today), I witnessed it up close and personal. But the idea that any civilized nation is ever free of moral burden or constraint in its response to ANY challenge should horrify us all.
As I think about it, though, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This lust for torture is, I believe, of a piece with the widespread support in this country for capital punishment, which continues long after
This torture lust is consistent, too, I believe, with a country in which there is a widely shared appetite for punishing those who have the misfortune to be poor by taking away many of the very support systems that might enable them to rise out of their poverty, thereby virtually guaranteeing that they will remain poor, and will continue to be punished for it.
Finally, there is the glaring hypocrisy of the fact that so many of the same folks who defend lawless conduct by the CIA are also those who, just a week or two ago, were lecturing African American communities about the need to educate their children about "respect for the law" and "respecting police officers." If we, as a nation, refuse to hold our government accountable for unlawful behavior and permit our own government to show utter contempt and disrespect for our own, as well as international laws, how can we -- indeed, how dare we -- expect any such respect on the part of our own citizenry?
Sinistrous
(4,249 posts)Very well done. Very, very well done.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)May 20, 1988
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution...
By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
May 20, 1988.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Selznick, P. (1951, January). Institutional vulnerability in mass society. American Journal of Sociology, 56(4), p. 328.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...do and believe in ignorant things.
- It has always been thus......
K&R
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)Those strongly or somewhat agreeing with "torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to gain information that may protect the public":
China 74%
India 74%
Kenya 66%
Nigeria 64%
Pakistan 56%
Indonesia 50%
USA 45%
Peru 40%
Turkey 32%
Mexico 29%
UK 29%
S Korea 27%
Russia 25%
Canada 25%
Australia 25%
Brazil 19%
Germany 19%
Chile 18%
Spain 17%
Argentina 15%
Greece 12%
Among developed countries, the USA is certainly high. Though India is a democracy and has higher support.
Interestingly, 77% of Americans strongly or somewhat agree "clear rules against torture are crucial because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights" (58% 'strongly'). Even though 45% also (at least somewhat) agree torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable.